http://aistm.org/cartoonwhichone.jpg

I will not fight any request to change unless I feel it infringes upon my own personal rights and freedoms or the rights and freedoms of an entity I care about. In this case it is neither for me. Out of courtesy I may change my behavior in accordance with a request if I feel that request has reason. In the example with my daughter, I try to be aware of where she is. I may eat in another room or modify my chewing behavior to try to be more quiet. But does that stop me from eating? No.

My personal point of view is not to intentionally offend or give harm also. But people will get offended over all sorts of issues, and to others those issues are trivial. Just because someone is offended does not mean behavior should change. If I am offended by southern politicians who have trouble pronouncing the word nuclear, does that mean they should get out of politics? We live in a country of freedom and democracy. The will of the majority should rule. However, we are seeing the will of the LOUDEST often ruling.

"Many Native Americans believe that their identity as people is diminished by the nicknames and mascots of Indians." I guess I am not swayed by this statement. I would like to see evidence of what they mean. I am open minded and am willing to join their cause if I really felt that a team nickname truly causes this damage. Is it a team nickname that causes the loss of identity or the white man making the Indians culturally conform to mainstream America or is it aphathy amongst some tribal members who no longer care for the traditions of their forefathers? Are they looking to blame something else when in reality they should be looking withing to discover the answer?

Looking at the opposite side, if I am offended by the behavior of others, I try to get beyond it if my request for change goes unheeded. I try not to swear in my personal life and am offended by foul language. I have a collegue who uses the F word constantly. I politely remind him from time to time to please not use that language around me, but the behavior does not change. I may get an occasional apology, but on the whole he continues to swear. Since I have to work with this individual, my choices are limited. Even though I am offended I can "get over it" and ignore it and make my best efforts not to let his language become part of my life - even though I am exposed to it. I can raise a formal complaint, which could result in his losing his job. I can continually remind him not to swear around me. I can become violent when I am offended. I can find a new job. There are lots of options. I choose to remind the individual every few months that his language offends me and I choose to ignore the language in between reminders. I do this to have the most productive working relationship we can have (in my perception). Should my will and preferences take precedence over his freedom to express himself? In my opinion No. Because of that, I have to "get over it". Should the will of an individual overrule the will of the masses? No. If there is merit in the will of the individual, it will catch on and the masses will adopt that principle.

I certainly agree there are more important matters that a universtiy faces than the mascot name. There are probably more important issues facing Native Americans and mascot nicknames.

On the Trojan issue, one of the elementaries in our system changed from Trojan's to Spartans simply because of the brand name implications.

Seems a little too PC for me, but I understand why they did it.

Re: Re: Re: Lay, Lady, Lay
 

Ah, the slippery slope. Once upon a time, a local team, known as The Prep, was playing a local rival. The Prep's cheering department was led by a plastic bucket with drumsticks and a conch shell. That's 'konk' or 'kahnch' - whatever. The matter of the legality of these noisemakers aside, the rivals came up with a sign "Prep Blows Conch". It was practically ripped out of their hands by one of their teachers. They wanted to retrieve it from the trash and re-assemble it. I suggested that they had made their point and lived, it would be good to just watch the game.

Mark-

Thanks for the info-- didn't realize the NCAA wasn't involved in the BCS. I still find the NCCA taking such a strong stance on this one particular issue a bit suspect, though, considering everything else going on out there.

Two other things--

I never understood the whole "Lady x" thing. Why is it necessary, why can't both teams have the same name? It just doesn't make sense to me. I mean, we can tell that you are all ladies, do we need it on the uniform?

Changing from the Trojans to the Spartans doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Perhaps they should have read the Iliad. While the Spartans never exactly got along with Athens, they certainly could not be interchanged with Trojans.

One of my personal favorites is the "Lady Demon Deacons". I'm still waiting for a school to have the "Lady Geldings". :D

I have seen the "Lady Bulls", but I suppose this is better than the "Cows"

One major problem I see in this is that the common arguments are lumping all "Native Americans" into one bucket with regards to thier views. However, there were hundreds (or perphaps thousands) of difference tribes on this continent and the only thing many of them had in common was the continent. The had different languages, customs, and practices. Just because some Indians are offended doesn't mean all are. Why should the the fact that an indian of the Illini tribe is offended about use of their image matter to the Seminoles or Utes who are apparently satisifed and supportive of the use of their image? This is no more right than saying all (fill in a race or ethnic group) are (fill in a word)?

I don't think anyone did say that all are offended. The point isn't that this individual or that single tribe is trying to jerk the tiger around by the tail. It's also not the point that a few indians are off sulking in the corner because they got their candy taken away.

The point is that trivializing and belittling people because of their racial and cultural heritage is not a healthy thing to do. It hurts both the one who is misunderstood, and the ones who perpetuate the misunderstanding. You and I are dehumanized when we condone or ignore this, just as many indians are demeaned.

If it seems small and petty to us, but it's huge to the indians, then why would we not quickly change the mascot and get on to discussing more important things? If they keep telling us it's important, and we keep saying no it's not, then we're just being hypocritical -- by acting in a way that doesn't accord with our words.

There are lots of different types of psychological ways that people define themselves. Cultural and racial background are an important part of how children learn about their own foundations and roots. If some of those are repeatedly belittled by people around, children learn to believe that they aren't important and that others don't respect them. It's very damaging.

When children have loving, attentive, mature adults around them to help them counteract the effects of a negative society, it isn't a huge problem. I'd guess that most Amish children fall into this category. Although many outsiders treat them like they're not very bright, and tend to belittle their culture, still the adults can lead the children in learning to see themselves as solid people with worth and dignity.

But many many Indian adults have never received this, and barely know how to live it, much less pass it on. For many Indian children the self-respect that we all need to grow into mature adults isn't very available. Why should our society contribute to that downward spiral? Even if the only thing we do is to merely reduce the negative influence on children who are struggling to grow, that is still a huge difference. Why wouldn't we want to be part of the solution, instead of part of the problem, when the cost to ourselves is so small?

So you're saying that Amish people as a group are in this respect better than Native Americans?

Well, I'm not sure whether I'm saying that or not. Better is a little bit of a judgment. I'm saying that the Amish culture hasn't been as devastated by outsiders as many of the Native American cultures have.

And I should also add, parenthetically, that I agree with the people who say that the NCAA should exempt mascots that use specific tribe names with the consent of those tribes. That doesn't seem "hostile and abusive" to me.

OK, let's pull on this a while.

You say that Amish families are able to surround their children with loving, attentive, mature adults. And because of this the children are able to maintin their dignity and self-worth in spite of the insults from outsiders. And this allows them to grow into mature adults who will in turn be able to surround their children with loving, attentive, mature adults. And so on.

Surely this is a good thing.

Next you say that this characteristic is not commonly found in Native American families. Causing Native Amrericans to have less self-respect than say, Amish.

Surely having self respect is 'better' than not having self respect.

So you're saying that Amish people as a group are in this respect better than Native Americans?

You completely missing my point. You (and the NCAA) treating the "indians" as if they were unified in their stance and that all portrayals are bad. They're not. While an Illini has every right to be offended by the use of their image, none of them have any right to say anything about the use of a Seminole image if the Seminoles approve of the use. Yet, they've placed enough pressue on the NCAA to have the use of the Seminole's also restricted. That, according to some, will actually harm the Seminole's or others like them who approve and benefit from it's use.

Why not extend the mascot ban so that only images of plants are acceptable. I'm sure there are people that are offended portrayal of animals or any group of humans. Isn't that Purdue mascot a bit of a humorus person...not exactly flattering...coudn't someone be offended.

If the group being portrayed is offended, then they image should not be used...but the "group" must be appropriately defined....all indians is too broad of a group.


[Edited by Camron Rust on Aug 11th, 2005 at 08:57 PM]

It is far from small and petty to many non-Native Americans. The issue is one of identity, not national or racial identity, but of identifying with a particular team or institution.

Consider my brother-in-law Sean. Sean has spent the past six and a half years at the University of Utah, four as a student, the remainder as an employee. He is as avid a sports fan as you are ever likely to meet. His rabid support for the Utes is by turn both vastly irritating and embarassing (depending on who beats who) to a family composed mostly of BYU alums.

There are millions of Americans like Sean. We spend several of our most formative years at a college or university. For most students it's an all-consuming, coming of age experience. It's during this time that most of us discover our own identity, we start to become who we'll eventually become, we make most of the major decisions we'll make in our lives (career, marriage, family, etc.). We're exposed to new thoughts and ideas that will shape how we think and view the world. And we make some of the dumbest mistakes of our young lives and live to laugh at them later.

By graduation a "traditional" student has spent nearly 20% of his or her life at that school. It's no wonder that the "The world is our campus" sign at BYU is almost universally misquoted as "The campus is our world."

Many of us turn to college athletics for diversion, socialization and a celebration of sorts of the institution we're attending. Many become such devoted fans that they live and die with the fortunes of their team. Rivalries develop. And so do lifelong friendships.

Being an Illini or a Seminole or a Ute is a very powerfully meaningful identity for many people. Yes, it is a different meaning than for Native Americans. Nonetheless it has deep meaning for them and will for the rest of their lives.

Schools themselves face a similar identity crisis. If the University of Utah is not the Utes, then who will they be? They have invested millions of dollars in marketing and merchandising, all aimed at bringing vital monies in to their treasuries. If alumni lose that sense of identifying with the university, contributions vital for their success may diminish. Community support may diminish as well. And future progress in many areas of achievement may be derailed as the institution searches for a new identity.

I'm not suggesting that this sense of identity should trump that which has been discussed at length. It is, of course, less important. But to suggest that changing such an identity is a trivial matter, of little consequence, is patently absurd.

I didn't say it was trivial. I was responding to someone else who said it was. I understand that it's not trivial to your brother in law and to many others. I think you're right that it's less important to students and others who "identify" with a school, than it is to the indians who have made an issue of it.

[Edited by rainmaker on Aug 12th, 2005 at 12:34 AM]

I agree that some of the mascots should not have been lumped in with some of the others. I've agreed with that point three times, now. But some mascots, such as "Braves", "Indians", "Redskins" and so on do apply to the whole group. It may be that not every Native American is offended by these. But enough are that the effort to get them changed has been supported and encouraged by national groups over a long period of time.

C'mon, Camron. This kind of sarcasm is beneath you. Can't you find a more eloquent way to make your point?

[Edited by rainmaker on Aug 12th, 2005 at 12:33 AM]

Well, what happens if I say yes? I mean, is this a loaded question?

USC History
 

I'm pretty sure I got this from SI.com's 10 Spot:

"USC -- The school's original nicknames were the Methodists and the Wesleyans, but when USC decided that wasn't quite fierce enough, the school picked Trojans in 1912. This, of course, was back when the name inspired odes to Greek history rather than cheap prophylactic jokes."

Loaded? Obviously it's loaded but not in a malicious manner. I ask the question simply because it is left, imo, begging for an answer.

But if you do answer yes don't we have an example of the pot calling the kettle <s>black</s>...errr...<s>non-white</s>...errr...Porto Rican?

I don't think this point is all that out of line. How far will the ban go. Right now it is associated with Native American's, what's next, I think it is a fair and important question.

I am not against eliminating situations that are offensive, but letting governing bodies such as the NCAA mandate these actions bothers me.

And once we start heading down that path, its hard to pull in the reins and stop.

I really think "What's next" is a question we should all be asking ourselves.

As others have noted this has been a tremendous thread. Florida State and Illinois are the highest profile schools that have been talked about so far. The University of North Dakota is a Div. I hockey powerhouse. Their nickname is "Fighting Sioux". This is an open letter to the NCAA from the president of UND:

August 12, 2005

CHARLES E. KUPCHELLA
President
University of North Dakota





An Open Letter to the NCAA:

The quiet serenity of our beautiful campus was disturbed early August 5 by news reports that the NCAA had decided to address the Indian nickname issue. The early reports were unclear; the words mascot, nickname, and logo were used interchangeably, and the loaded words “abusive” and “hostile” were invoked without definition and without any real clear idea as to how they were being applied. We don’t have a mascot, and our logo was designed by a very well-respected American Indian artist. We couldn’t imagine that these reports would apply to us.

Later, we saw the full release. While it looked like the action taken by the NCAA was insulting, and a flagrant abuse of power, we knew that good, well-meaning people were involved in the decision and we wanted to consider our reaction carefully.

We were initially stunned by the charge “abusive” and “hostile,” and then angry. We reflected and gave it a week before drafting this response. I must admit to sinking at one point during the past week to the notion that my Association was guilty of “political correctness run amok” as suggested by some papers.

We want to file an appeal, but first we need to know the basis for your decisions. We need the answers to some questions first, in other words.

I do not wish to take up the issue, here, of any absolute or general “correctness” of using American Indian imagery. Those on both sides of the issue have long ago made up their minds, and no amount of talking over many years seems to have moved anyone from one side of the issue to the other. Suffice it to say, some choose to be insulted by the use of these terms; others are befuddled by this reaction to what they consider to be an honor. What I would like to take up here is a matter of the appropriateness and legality of the NCAA’s action. I mean to take up the issue of whether the NCAA has gone over the edge and out of bounds in the action announced on Friday.

Is it the use of Indian names, images, and/or mascots to which you are opposed? If it is all of the above, which logos, images, and mascots do you indict by your announcement? Is it only certain ones? As I said, a very respected Indian artist designed and created a logo for the University. The logo is not unlike those found on United States coins and North Dakota highway patrol cars and highway signs. So we can’t imagine that the use of this image is “abusive” or “hostile” in any sense of these words.

Is it the use of the names of tribes that you find hostile and abusive?

Not long ago I took a trip to make a proposal to establish an epidemiological program to support American Indian health throughout the Upper Great Plains. On this trip I left a state called North Dakota. (Dakota is one of the names the indigenous people of this region actually call themselves.) I flew over South Dakota, crossing the Sioux River several times, and finally landed in Sioux City, Iowa, just south of Sioux Falls, South Dakota. The airplane in which I traveled that day was called a Cheyenne.

I think you should find my confusion here understandable, since obviously if we were to call our teams “The Dakotans,” we would actually be in more direct violation of what apparently you are trying to establish as a rule, even though this is the name of our state. This situation, of course, is not unlike that faced by our sister institution in Illinois.

Is it only when some well-meaning people object to the use of the names of tribes? If so, what standard did you use to decide where the line from acceptable to “hostile” and “abusive” is crossed? We note that you exempted a school with a certain percentage of American Indian students. We have more than 400 American Indian students here. Who decided that a certain percentage was okay, but our percentage was not? Where is the line between okay and hostile/abusive?

We have two Sioux tribes based here in North Dakota. One has, in fact, objected to our use of the name, “Sioux,” applied to our sports teams. The other said it was okay, provided that we took steps to ensure that some good comes of it, in educating people and students about the cultural heritage of this region. This mix of opinions is apparently not unlike that faced by our sister institution in Florida.

Is it only about applying names to sports teams? If so, would this be extended to the use of the names of all people, or is it just American Indians? Why would you exempt the “Fighting Irish” from your consideration, for example? Or “Vikings,” which are really fighting Scandinavians, or “Warriors,” which I suppose could be described as fighting anybodies? Wouldn’t it be “discrimination on account of race” to have a policy that applies to Indians but not to Scandinavians or the Irish, or anybody else for that matter? This seems especially profound in light of a letter to me from President Brand (8/9/05) in which he, in very broad-brush fashion and inconsistent with the NCAA’s recent much narrower pronouncement, said, “we believe that mascots, nicknames or images deemed hostile or abusive in terms of race, ethnicity or national origin should not be visible at our events.” (my emphasis)

As to the flagrant abuse of power question, I want to make sure I have this straight. We’ve recently built some magnificent facilities costing well over $100 million, under rules permitting us to host championship tournaments and otherwise participate fully in NCAA sanctioned activities, in which the very architecture of the building incorporates names and images of American Indian people. Do you really expect us now to spend large amounts of money to erase what we consider to be respectful images and names of Indian people who inhabited this region in the interest of the NCAA Executive Committee?

Hostile and abusive??

Help me understand why you think “hostile and abusive” applies to us. We have more than 25 separate programs in support of American Indian students here receiving high-end university educations. Included among these is an “Indians Into Medicine” program, now 30+ years running, that has generated 20 percent of all American Indian doctors in the United States. We have a similar program in Nursing, one in Clinical Psychology, and we are about to launch an “Indians into Aviation” program in conjunction with our world-class Odegard School of Aerospace Sciences. I am very proud when I visit reservations in our state to see that a large number of the teachers, doctors, Tribal College presidents, and other leaders are graduates of the University of North Dakota.

Do you really expect us to host a tournament in which these names and images are covered in some way that would imply that we are ashamed of them?

Concerning tournaments already scheduled: Is the NCAA taking the position that it can actually unilaterally modify a contract already made? Perhaps the charge (sometimes heard) that the NCAA exhibits too much of the arrogance that comes from its status as a monopoly – apart from the question of whether it’s an effective organization – does indeed have a basis.

If the NCAA has all this power, why not use it to restore intercollegiate athletics to the ideal of sportsmanship by decoupling intercollegiate athletics from its corruption by big budgets? Why not use the power to put a halt to the out-of-control financial arms race that threatens to corrupt even higher education itself?

Yes, I know that in theory the NCAA is actually an association, and that UND is a member of it, and therefore it’s really we who are doing all of these things to ourselves, or failing to do all of these things ourselves. But is the NCAA really a democratic organization? Why did we not put these issues to a vote by all member schools??

In his USA Today essay, Myles Brand proclaimed that this is a teachable moment, suggesting that the NCAA decision is “aimed at initiating a discussion on a national basis about how American Indians have been characterized . . . .” Great idea! Let’s have the discussion – one that we should have had before this ruling was handed down, one that actually includes American Indians and puts this in the perspective of all that is important to them at this time in history. And while we are at it, why not also address the state of intercollegiate athletics – whether or not student-athletes at some schools are being exploited, and whether or not there is an out-of-control financial “arms race” threatening the integrity of higher education itself.

In considering how to appeal, we find it exasperating that we can’t tell what the basis for your initial decision was and how you singled us out in the first place. In a letter from Myles Brand to me (8/9/05) he suggests that we could, in an appeal, argue that our symbols or mascots do not create a hostile or abusive environment. But his letter also seems to suggest that as long as some think the environment is hostile, case closed.

By the way, the last time this issue was stirred up on our campus, a formal charge was made to the Office for Civil Rights that the use of our logo or nickname created a hostile environment here at the University. The Office for Civil Rights sent a half-dozen people to our campus. They fanned out across campus and after more than a week here, found no such thing. Did the Executive Committee find some things they missed, perhaps? Or does a committee in Indianapolis trump the Office for Civil Rights here, on the ground, in North Dakota?

Finally, I expect that we will file an appeal, because should we wish to take this issue to court, the courts would undoubtedly ask if we have exhausted all administrative remedies. Please send us the appropriate application forms, and give us an indication of how the appeal will be heard and when. If the timing of this appeal were such that your deadline occurs before the appeal is resolved, we would ask that the deadline be put off, otherwise we may well have to go to the expense of seeking an injunction halting the imposition of these policies until all of our questions can be answered satisfactorily.

We thank you in advance for considering our questions.

Sincerely,



Charles E. Kupchella
President

NDRef
 

UND letter was thoughtful, insightful, and well written. Great Stuff! Thanks for sharing the letter with the group.

Why take 1000 big words to say what can be said in 50 simple words? It would only be an exercise in writing, not in communicating.

The sarcasm is a perfect method to expose the sillines of this extremism rather than what it could have been: a rational well constructed policy.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/colle...-options_x.htm

How respectful are these people?

http://aistm.org/chiefillini2.jpg

"History is repeating itself...once again, non-Indian people are telling Indian people what is good for them."

Indian leader in response to the NCAA's proposal banning Indian mascots.

LOL

:D

Dan -

that just about sums it up.......:) LMAO

Letter posted by ND Ref
 

ND Ref:

The letter posted by the UND President was very well written. I am curious to see how the NCAA responds, if it does.

While I'd like to believe that colleges don't want people to feel demeaned or belittled by their logos or mascots, I still wonder why schools that have made good-faith efforts to promote Native American logos and mascots in a positive manner are now being told that their efforts don't matter if even one person has objections. (That's the impression I'm getting right now)

It's important to be tolerant, but why punish those who are trying to do the right thing?

OK - here's what we need to do. Let's start a college, join the NCAA and give our teams the following nickname:

"The Noble and Proud Indigenous Peoples of North and South America who, having endured prejudicial and unfair treatment at the hands of the U.S. government, nevertheless have maintained their culture, identity and dignity and who deserve to be honored by our sports teams as an example of how a group of people can endure despite cruel hardships and attempts by others to eradicate them".

Of course, the women's teams would be "The Lady Noble and Proud Indigenous Peoples of North and South America who, having endured prejudicial and unfair treatment at the hands of the U.S. government, nevertheless have maintained their culture, identity and dignity and who deserve to be honored by our sports teams as an example of how a group of people can endure despite cruel hardships and attempts by others to eradicate them".

Or....we could just use the more politically correct "Casino-Americans" (that's not a slur - that's a term of respect and admiration used here in Oregon - really).

Come out to where I live (Eastern Connecticut) and see how people respond to that term. :p

There's actually a cartoon showing a highway sign that says "Welcome to Eastern Connecticut; A Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Foxwoods."

"Taking back America, one nickel at a time."

I realize this is a very late response to this issue.
 

Here is a link to many about many "Black" people in the entertainment industry and their ancestry. Most of these individuals I have seen identify themselves as being Black when interviewed (like Halle Berry) and the types of content they might put participate in as well. Also my maternal Grandmother is part Native American so I can trace some of my ancestry to the Native American people. I found this link interesting considering the people that are on this long list.

http://www.blackflix.com/articles/multiracial.html

It would be nice if I included the link. :D

Peace

[Edited by JRutledge on Aug 15th, 2005 at 08:47 AM]

My grandmother (dad's side) was part Choctaw. Guess I should add my name to one side of this discuss or the other, just not sure which side.

August 24, 2005
Florida State Can Keep Its Seminoles
By ROBERT ANDREW POWELL
There was never any doubt where the Seminole Tribe of Florida stood on Florida State University's nickname. The tribe helped university boosters create the costume for the Chief Osceola mascot, approving the face paint, flaming spear and Appaloosa horse that have no connection to Seminole history.

Yesterday, the National Collegiate Athletic Association agreed with the 3,100-member tribe and the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, which had also endorsed the nickname. The N.C.A.A. removed Florida State from the list of universities banned from using what it called "hostile and abusive" mascots and nicknames during postseason play.

"The N.C.A.A. executive committee continues to believe the stereotyping of Native Americans is wrong," Bernard Franklin, the association's senior vice president for governance and membership, said in a statement. "However, in its review of the particular circumstances regarding Florida State, the staff review committee noted the unique relationship between the university and the Seminole Tribe of Florida as a significant factor."

A student dressed as Chief Osceola will ride bareback on the Appaloosa horse Renegade to midfield before the season opener against Miami on Sept. 5 in a ceremony indigenous to only Doak Campbell Stadium in Tallahassee.

"The N.C.A.A. recognizes the many different points of view on this matter, particularly within the Native American community," Franklin added. "The decision of a namesake sovereign tribe, regarding when and how its name and imagery can be used, must be respected even when others may not agree."

On Aug. 5, the N.C.A.A. executive committee issued the ban, which is scheduled to go into effect in February. The prohibition concerns logos, signs in stadiums, cheerleader and band uniforms, and mascots.

"It's not about an effort to be politically correct," Myles Brand, the president of the N.C.A.A., said in a statement when the ban was announced. "It is about doing the right thing."

Florida State's president, T. K. Wetherell, immediately protested the ban.

"That the N.C.A.A. would now label our close bond with the Seminole people as culturally 'hostile and abusive' is both outrageous and insulting," he said in a statement.

Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida said, "The folks that make these decisions need to get out more often." He added that it was offensive to "the Seminole Indian tribe who support the traditions of F.S.U."

After an emergency meeting, the university Board of Trustees filed an appeal with the N.C.A.A. The hearing was held this week, and the decision was announced yesterday.

Because of the pressure from Florida State and other members, the N.C.A.A. said last Friday that it would consider appeals of the ban on a case-by-case basis. The ban would affect 17 other universities with American Indian nicknames or mascots, including Illinois (Illini) and North Dakota (Fighting Sioux).

Support for Florida State is obvious at the Seminole Tribe's showcase Okalee Indian Village in Hollywood, Fla. The village is a small, modern, concrete zoo on the site of the tribe's Hard Rock Casino, adjacent to an Improv comedy club. Under chickees, grass huts that fan out around a cooking pit, women sew patchwork dresses while sitting on garnet-colored nylon F.S.U. football folding chairs.

Seminoles descended from Creek Indians who lived by rivers in Georgia and Alabama. In the 1800's, the federal government torched trees and crops on Indian land, forcing hundreds of Indians south into Florida, where they mixed with aboriginal tribes. Thousands of other Indians were captured and forced to march to Oklahoma along what became known as the Trail of Tears. Continued conflict with the federal government pushed the surviving Seminoles farther down the Florida peninsula, into the Everglades.

The Seminoles are the only American Indian tribe never to sign a formal peace treaty with the United States. To celebrate this status, Florida State erected "Unconquered," a statue of the Chief Osceola mascot, outside its football stadium.

Tribe members survived for a time by selling otter pelts and alligator skins to white settlers in Fort Lauderdale and Miami. When South Florida tourism boomed in the 1920's, Seminoles capitalized by wrestling alligators for money. In 1979, the Seminoles opened the first casino on Indian land, ushering in what has become a multibillion-dollar industry operated by numerous tribes nationwide.

The Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida split from the Seminoles in the early 1960's, setting up a 33-acre reservation on the northern border of Everglades National Park, about 45 miles west of Miami. As an independent tribe with historical links to the Seminoles, the Miccosukee could have endorsed the N.C.A.A. nickname ban and forced Florida State to comply. But they did not want to.

"The Seminole name, it just makes you pretty much better," said one female Miccosukee, who had a "NOLES" vanity plate on the front bumper of her husband's Ford F-150. She refused to give her name; public comments are what tribal leaders are for, she said.

There are about 550 Miccosukee. Most live in a straight line of concrete houses along the Old Tamiami Trail. The houses overlook miles of sawgrass broken up by hammocks of pine and cypress trees. Fat gray clouds carry summer thunderstorms toward Miami. White herons glide among the hammocks, flying over deer, alligators and otters concealed in the grass.

Throughout the reservation, loyalty to Florida State is declared on mailboxes with "FSU #1 FAN" stickers, and on pickup trucks with vanity plates. A gold tomahawk leans against the facade of one house, next to a small concrete football player rushing over a field of crushed garnet stones.

Affection for the Seminoles is not absolute. Several houses feature University of Miami mailboxes and banners. Joe Cypress, who called himself an "original Seminole," lives on the reservation with his Miccosukee wife and said he had been a Hurricanes fan all his life.

"It don't bother me," he said of the Seminoles nickname and of his neighbors who support Florida State. "We coexist."



Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

Great story in the Chicago Tribune this morning....one that made me laugh out loud.

Visit the official NCAA sports website at:

http://www.shopNCAAsports.com/

If you click on various schools, you will find for sale:
1) A lovely Arkansas State Indians beanbag chair- complete with the Indians'logo.
2) For the fan of the North Dakota Fighting Sioux, you can buy hockey shirts and wall clocks emblazoned with the face of the Fighting Sioux emblem.
3) And the best one.....for all of you Illinois fans out there, the NCAA is happy to announce that they have all kinds of merchandise available with the likeness of your favorite Indian chief on it-- Chief Illiniwek-- complete with painted face and headdress. You have your choice of bracelet charms, the actual bracelet for only $550, or a very nice headrest. The NCAA also wants to ensure that you are bringing your kids up politically correct too. To that end, they will sell you a children's book featuring Chief Illiniwek.

There's nothing posted anywhere on the NCAA web site that tells you whether if it's OK or not to wear all of this stuff they're selling to NCAA playoff games though. You may want to check that out before attending. :D

There was an article in the paper last weekend that said the NCAA will re-consider its policy as it applies to schools that went to the effort to gain the cooperation and blessing of specific tribes. I hope that is the case.

I am sure that the NCAA will forfeit their royalties from the sale of the hostile and abusive merchandise and give all the proceeds either back to the university, or in a donation to the native Americans to whom this merchandise is so offensive.